Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

Originally Posted by JMS

Don't you understand Jason? Any handy excuse to prove themselves right.

+1, you don't get exposure if your proving everything is okay. But, if you say the world is going to end you get endless exposure and funding man made global warming is just the latest in a series of sensationalist claims.

1. Nature is the biggest producer and biggest SINK of CO2, which is why Reagan made himself look like a fool for saying that trees are the worst emitters of CO2. A sink is a storage place. So it's usually in equilibrium and the rate of change is much slower until we start burning the CO2 that's stored in fossil fuels. Just think logically for a second. If we burn tons of fossil fuels, which store CO2 and release it when burned, where is that CO2 going? And if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then what is that excess CO2 going to do?

2. Global climate change encompasses cooling in some areas and warming in others. The overall trend, however, is and will be warming.

3. When I say read the research, I mean it. Of course, it's difficult to get through the statistics, etc. if you don't have experience with it, but journal articles are often not difficult to read. Get on sciencedirect or some other database and just look up the articles. If you're just sooo scared of the IPCC and it's evil money making schemes, then don't go to them. But don't go to the research with your fox-news-parroting unthinking perspective, either, cause that's just wasting your time.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

To the rest of your post 'science' has long been trying to blame our use of oil for our impending demise, even though oil is the driving force of our technicalogical advancement the last 100 plus years. Oil was blamed for global cooling in the 70's, and then global heating in the late 90's, now its just blamed for both and they call it global climate change.

Global cooling in the '70s was conjecture, not a theory as there was little supporting evidence. Of the 71 scientific papers written on the subject between 1965 and 1979, only 7 concluded that the earth was cooling. The vast majority concluded that the climate was warming. PDF link with source -- page 8 of the PDF has a list of published papers.

Science!

MY response to Global Warming is a little different than a lot of people. I personally don't care in the warming or cooling of the globe,water, people or plants. I would rather just move ahead and do what is logical.


Cut the crap with carbon based fuels. Make almost all of our power electrical. Use power generated by viable cost effective means like nuclear, geo-thermanl, wind or whatever. The one criteria should be that it is cost effective and based on science not a lot of BS a bunch that some liberals pull our of thier ass. There is, of course, the argument that subsidies ferment good science and I am all for that, within reason. Sorry photo cell technology is not viable yet. It is to expensive but that is ok..just let us know what it is costing us to help the guy across the street put in his system. Make no mistake we are paying for part of HIS system.

The UN should not be given a dime for resolving the warming issue over and above committies that are needed to do good science. Giving the UN trillions of dollars will do nothing but spending trillions of dollars. The UN is just another form of govermental bureaucracy on steroids! They will waste money and resources like pumping gold down a hole.

There is an excellent book called "Physics for future Presidents" read it. It a logical common sense approach about the scientific facts, not Voodoo facts, scientific facts. It covers many things in our global society but includes Global Warming. Excellent read.

Once we get to the point that we are as efficient as we can be then we will get to the problem that most liberals will not admit. Human cause an enviromental impact...get over it! No you are not going to be allowed to sterilize people to keep the population down and I am not going back to gathering nuts and berries to live.

Take Care,
Richard

I love how fox news constantly gets slammed when all it does it represent a perspective that viewers demand. Liberal minds are quick to point the finger at fox news for being biased while they follow CNN and MSNBC as if it is holy script. All news programs pander to their viewers and of the big three fox is probably closer to providing both viewpoints fairly. Of course it doesn't but it is the closest. In all honesty msnbc and fox news are only a step or two above the daily show and the colbert report (in the case of Glenn Beck maybe a step below) Scientific journals are easy to read but like everything else they are biased. Your anti fox news mindset shows you have already closed your mind to any other viewpoint. If you are unwilling to research both sides fairly and find what's most logical to you, you have already lost any credibility.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

So a pollutant is everything that we cant breathe in 100% concentrations? Like Oxygen, and Nitrogen. 400 ppm is a long way from there any how.

To the rest of your post 'science' has long been trying to blame our use of oil for our impending demise, even though oil is the driving force of our technicalogical advancement the last 100 plus years. Oil was blamed for global cooling in the 70's, and then global heating in the late 90's, now its just blamed for both and they call it global climate change.

With all respects, i wouldn't suggest trying to breath air with CO2 levels gone high. I had a questionable pleasure of trying it few years ago when a valve of an CO2 fire extinguisher accidentally got broke. I was lucky to wake up in hospital.
Same goes with 100% oxygen: might get lethal in certain cases. Doesn't have to be even 100%.
That is why it is so important to try to keep the consumption of our atmosphere steady. With CO2 levels rising it gets impossible sooner or later.

I think it is secondary to argue whether climate change is caused by a man or not. The fact is that the climate gets warmer. More important is to consider if there's anything to make it slower. The earth has been hot before, but it was before man, and it will cool down again but not any of us nor any of our descendants will be here to witness it, specially if CO2 levels get too high.
Climate change is surely not the end of the world but surely it is the end of most species here, including humans.

The scientists have calculated that within billion years the sun gets so hot that all seas will evaporate. That will be the final bye bye to all life here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to give our children even changes or hope to go on if the choices of the past generations some day turn out to be stupid.

Originally Posted by thehekler

I love how fox news constantly gets slammed when all it does it represent a perspective that viewers demand. Liberal minds are quick to point the finger at fox news for being biased while they follow CNN and MSNBC as if it is holy script. All news programs pander to their viewers and of the big three fox is probably closer to providing both viewpoints fairly. Of course it doesn't but it is the closest. In all honesty msnbc and fox news are only a step or two above the daily show and the colbert report (in the case of Glenn Beck maybe a step below) Scientific journals are easy to read but like everything else they are biased. Your anti fox news mindset shows you have already closed your mind to any other viewpoint. If you are unwilling to research both sides fairly and find what's most logical to you, you have already lost any credibility.

Most scientific studies i've tried to read have stated that human might be part of a possible cause and specially its speed of the climate change. No reliable research could ever claim that the cause if 100% of us.
Real science always is always more than willing to change its conclusions whenever new, scientifically proven evidence occurs.

Most media and some studies of those who are against climate change, (and specially our part in it), focus to ridicule those researches of the opposite side. They rather claim that we could never ever have absolute anything to do with climate change (if such thing even exists). At the same time they have nothing to give. People want to hear that they are ok and righteous so concentrate on those who think the other way.
Such claims have no much to do with science. Say 200 years ago similar parties claimed that we are species made by God 6000 some years ago and we have a right to do to earth whatever we want. Luckily those days are over.
I find reading such media very frustrating, but will keep on trying in future as well. Whatever the topic, it is always most useful to read (and sometimes learn) opinions on every side of the camp.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

To the rest of your post 'science' has long been trying to blame our use of oil for our impending demise, even though oil is the driving force of our technicalogical advancement the last 100 plus years. Oil was blamed for global cooling in the 70's, and then global heating in the late 90's, now its just blamed for both and they call it global climate change.

While it is true that oil-based industry and technology has brought us to the current high living standards we have today in the western world, there is no oil enough to give every people of the planet same rights as we have today.
That is a blessing because sooner or later we have to really start serious researching how to deal with this in the future. How to get new, cheap, clean energy.
Personally i believe that technology is the key; not turning back time. It is just that soon we are in a real hurry before it is too late.

I have to shovel snow half the year, potentially at least, so this climate change/global warming thing doesn't fill my mind with terror. The real problem I have is with the blame peddling and the urgings for immediate change to solve the assumed problem and reverse its effects. Do we know who caused our last ice age and who reversed it? Are we still on that path of warming? If we humans are as powerful as claimed, we need to know who the guys were who caused earlier changes and find out what figurative or real muscles those other fellas used and where they set the thermostat.

Hercules you say? Could be; he could straighten out rivers. 'Course, Paul Buyan's footprints made lakes. Where are these guys when we need 'em?

Originally Posted by thehekler

I love how fox news constantly gets slammed when all it does it represent a perspective that viewers demand. Liberal minds are quick to point the finger at fox news for being biased while they follow CNN and MSNBC as if it is holy script. All news programs pander to their viewers and of the big three fox is probably closer to providing both viewpoints fairly. Of course it doesn't but it is the closest. In all honesty msnbc and fox news are only a step or two above the daily show and the colbert report (in the case of Glenn Beck maybe a step below) Scientific journals are easy to read but like everything else they are biased. Your anti fox news mindset shows you have already closed your mind to any other viewpoint. If you are unwilling to research both sides fairly and find what's most logical to you, you have already lost any credibility.

So if you don't like Fox News and think it's a waste of time to watch you've closed your mind to any other viewpoint? That's quite a stretch.

You should watch the documentary OUTFOXED.

Originally Posted by thehekler

But, if you say the world is going to end you get endless exposure

The world is going to be around for a long time but not necessarily populated by man.